Women's Equality ... Why Not Now?

The July 4th weekend is over, and I am still reflecting on where women are in the political and cultural landscape of America. Firecrackers and picnics aside, Abigail Adams didn't get to sign the Declaration of Independence, Betsy Ross sewed the flag, and how many people even know who Deborah Samson Gannett was?

In late June, I attended a panel discussion hosted by the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy. The topic was "the status of women in society, and the policies needed to close the gender gap." DMI defines itself as "a progressive policy institute dedicated to challenging the tired orthodoxies of both the right and the left." Five women joined Congresswoman Carolyn B. Maloney to examine issues she has written about in her new book,Rumors of Our Progress Have Been Greatly Exaggerated: Why Women's Lives Aren't Getting Any Easier - and How We Can Make Real Progress for Ourselves and Our Daughters.

A press release asked, "Women's equality...why not now?" It gave statistics showing that in 2007, women were paid 77 cents for every dollar that men were paid. I was ready to hear about if women's status with men in American society is equivalent, or just a myth.

Speaker of the New York City Council,
Christine Quinn, delivered an opening statement crediting Maloney with shifting the power paradigm. Maloney got right into it by asking, "What would Congress look like if it were only 16% men?" Pointing out, "We live in a country where we still can't pass the Equal Rights Amendment," she highlighted that during eight years of George Bush there had been a "constant eroding of women's rights."

Moderator Andrea Batista, Executive Director of DMI, introduced former Congresswoman
Pat Schroeder. With Hillary Clinton's run for the presidency still fresh in the collective consciousness, there was a particular irony in having present the woman who had thrown her hat into the ring for the oval office in 1988.

Although Schroeder had ranked third in a Time magazine poll, for numerous reasons -- including lack of funds -- she ultimately withdrew. A Harvard Law School graduate who remained undefeated for 24 years, Schroeder described how in 1984 there were parts of the country where women were not elected to anything. "I was like this great traveling novelty act," she related. "How can you be a Congresswoman and a mother?" people would inquire. Her standard line was, "I have a brain and a uterus, and they both work." She was the first woman to serve on the House Armed Services Committee. Schroeder told the story about how Ron Dellums, the first African America member, was appointed at around the same time she was. The chairman said, "That girl and that black are each worth about half. I'll give them one chair." Schroeder touched on the primary race and how "with Hillary it became a kill-the-witch thing." She emphasized that people had to come forward to fight sexism and lamented, "We have not moved that far."

Diana Salas, Associate Director of the Women of Color Policy Network, pointed to the fact that "women of color experience racism and sexism differently," and referenced her work to end the invisibility of women of color. "My issue is immigration," she said. "We need to hold candidates accountable, beyond the sound bites." She acknowledged the "huge gap between women of color and white women." Suggesting the need for a human rights commission, Salas said, "We can't just be meeting in silos. A group of older white men should not be making decisions for all of us."

Executive Vice-President of the National Organization for Women, Olga Vives, said, "We will not be equal without economic parity." She spoke about Wal-Mart, the largest employer in the United States. "Why does Wal-Mart have lower prices?" she asked. (Paying women less than men is a good place to start.) "Our activism has not kept up to speed." With a strong delivery, Vives stated, "We don't want a McCain presidency. We need to sit down with Obama, and gain a place at his table."

"Women have to push harder," said Lisa Witter, COO of Fenton Communications. "I would love for Obama to give a seminal speech on women."

A co-founder of SheSource and the co-author of
The She Spot: Why Women are the Market for Changing the World and How to Reach Them, she took a pro-active stance. "We have the opportunity to make ourselves more visible." Underscoring the possibility for women to drive change, she articulated the concept of "the next frontier for women."

Schlesinger directed the group's attention to parsing if "focusing on choice" has been limiting. Vives identified that "abortion is neither safe nor equal for a lot of women." Salas advocated reframing the issue by constructing a dialogue on it "through a reproductive justice network." The topic of the 17 girls in Gloucester, Massachusetts -- who allegedly made a "pregnancy pact" -- came up. "What is that about?" asked Schroeder. "What has happened in the culture? I am totally perplexed."

Maloney stood firm in her belief that economic support for women was tantamount. "The strongest indicator for being poor in old age is being a Mom" (known as the Mom Bomb). Witter said, "Society doesn't support mothers." Maloney wondered why in a nation where "family values" are touted, the United States ranked 168th in the world on paid family leave. In terms of representation, she insisted, "We need to have more women in the pipeline. Women's issues are swept under the rug. Where is the discussion? We have great power, but we're not using it. Let's get some of these issues passed into law!"

Maloney was at the Hillary Clinton rally in New Hampshire when a man held up a sign that said, "Iron my shirt." Going forward, women - who make up more than half of the electorate - would do well to heed Maloney's advice on self-empowerment. "If we don't stand up and do it ourselves, it's not going to happen."

Photos Courtesy of Lindsey Beyerstein

Comments

[ms.understood]

I honestly don't know how I feel about this article because as a woman, I don't want the prospects of career pursuits to be limited just because I am a woman, but at the same time, I do appreciate the differences that men and women have. I enjoy being a woman and wouldn't have it any other way. I enjoy working and having the choice to pursue any endeavor I choose, but I also enjoy being taken out on a date and men holding the door for me. I enjoy "feeling" like a lady, and sometimes, I would love to just escape the feelings of having to compete for everything. I feel as though I am just as competent as a man in some areas, but I also know that in some things, men are better than I am. I am interested in the sciences, for example, so whomever decides that they want to pursue a career in that field should be paid according to their talents and positions. This world will never be perfect, and women, as well as others, will always have to fight some battle somewhere.

[LillianB]

I define feminism as humanism. (The same way, I define anti-racism and anti-homophobia and anti-religious discrimination and, well, every kind of anti-discrimination-movement. Every kind of tolerat equal rights-position.) My over-all-view, to sum it up in one sentence, is this: We're all created different = we are all of equal value. Or like my grandmother used to say, when we were kids and started misbehaving: "People are people. Treat them like you want to be treated yourself."

That means:
No one should have lesser options due to their gender (or color, or orientation, or beliefs, or whatever). No one should be considered of lesser value than others due to any kind of group identity.
No one should let gender stereotypes (or other stereotypes) limit themselves, not in the way they see themselves, not in the way they're seen by others.

Being a feminist isn't and shouldn't mean denying yourself your femininity. Femininity is part of your individuality. And enjoying people being polite (like holding open doors and paying attention to you, whether on dates or otherwise) should not have to be limited to men you date.

I hope I have made it easier for you to make up your mind about "what to think" about this article. I don't think it should ever be difficult to decide if one wants equal rights for all.

[research]

When you women take those "special rights", there is a price to pay, just as in all of life.

"Femininity" the way many women are practicing in the USA is a marketing creation.

[ms.understood]

I agree with your blog, however, some men view us wanting equal pay as us wanting to be treated like men, so they don't want to do things like hold the door for women, which I used as just a simple example. Don't believe me, just read the blog left by "research" down below.

[Steve Real]

it "through a reproductive justice network." The topic of the 17 girls in Gloucester, Massachusetts -- who allegedly made a "pregnancy pact" -- came up. "What is that about?" asked Schroeder. "What has happened in the culture? I am totally perplexed."

Yeah white women having babies?
Who would have thunk it?

I didn't think white women had babies anymore?

[NABNYC]

We need 50% and not one less. In Congress: what are we waiting for? In the courts: in my county, women are 20% of the judges, stuck there for decades now. Why not 50%? Because the people who appoint them are white men. We need 50% of the doctors, lawyers in practices, university professors, contractors, architects, engineers. Getting the degree was the big barrier when professional schools simply shut women out: No Females Allowed. But once we got through that, it turned out that the men banded together to exclude women. You can only work in the "womens" area of a field -- like be an ob/gyn or pediatrician, but not a heart surgeon.

50% and not one less of every single position: artist. How about symphony conductors? Every time women get over the most recent hurdle, the men come up with new ones. If the women who are in public positions, like Hillary Clinton, would take a public stand demanding 50% women not once but every day of their lives, then we could get this going. But the silence and collaboration of women in power makes the whole issue invisible.

[research]

50% stay at home husbands, 50% women paying for dates, 50% women courting men, 50% women opening doors for men, 50% women in the military, 50% women picking up trash, 50% women construction workers, 50% male models, 50% male strippers, ...oh you get it.

[LillianB]

I posted this in another tread yesterday. I'd like to repeat it:

Thomas Jefferson wrote "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal". 232 years and two days later, some of us are reminded he forgot to include women & non-whites into his thinking.

Still, heterosexual white men are the only ones truely "allowed" not to define themselves from their sexual orientation, hue or gender. They are allowed to define themselves from their personalities, positions, life-experiences. The rest of us are put into boxes. Whatever life-experience or position or personality we have, are put into those boxes as well. You can have a look on whatever tread you like, even here, on Huffpost, where most posters are supposedly liberal. And you'd find bigotry, misogony or gay bashing in each and every one. I'm sure.

I won't "victimize" myself. I am hetero, white and a woman. But this isn't how I define myself. I define myself from how I'm thinking. Or feeling. Or experiecing. From my job, my education, my everyday life. And I think we should all be allowed to. Then it will become self-evident that though we're all created different, we're all of equal value. And then Thomas Jefferson could really, truely, thorughly, be proud of us all.

[research]

Men are NOT ALLOWED to veer from the Heterosexual white male straight jacket. White men are put in dull ugly uniform boxes. Everybody else gets to party. I remember seeing the resurgence of the 'suited men" at one of the latter SF Erotic exotic balls. The original parties had everyone dressed crazy and fun, not a suit to be seen, and it was great fun. Then the "suited men" arrived in droves. They were boring, boorish, wanted only to see a strip show by the "suited men"'s enablers, the "models" . These "suited men" were repressed and compulsive.

This matched the transition from the 60's, hippies and freedom, to... well what we have now.

[research]

The personal is political.

Since so many women are going back to tradition male female roles and social interactions, they will probably lose more power. "The Rules" are a text book on how to be a nice quiet receptive pretty flower. Men in Penguin suits while women hold a beauty pageant, same problem. But women seem happy being models and targets of acquisition, so it's their choice.